OPINION:
In their attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas, liberals and the mainstream media go from bad to worse (“Senators push bill to force Supreme Court to adopt code of conduct, ethics,” web, April 26).
Bad is their suggestion that there’s something sinister about the lavish gifts from Harlan Crow to Justice Thomas and his wife during their 25-year friendship. It’s exceedingly unlikely that a matter involving Mr. Crow’s interests would come before the Supreme Court. The Thomas accusers see evil in the size of the Crow gifts, but the fact that Mr. Crow has apparently invested tens of thousands — if not millions — of dollars in his long friendship with Justice Thomas is evidence for the accused.
Why would Mr. Crow spend untold amounts to nurture a friendship with Justice Thomas on the decidedly slim chance that he might at some unknown time in the future have a matter before the Supreme Court? And how would he know Justice Thomas would cast the deciding vote in Mr. Crow’s favor?
Worse is the congressional proposal to make the Supreme Court adopt a code of ethics for the court and appoint someone “to review potential conflicts.” This proposal is probably unconstitutional. Congress and the Supreme Court are coequal branches of government, and it’s unlikely that one branch can tell another how to run its business.
What’s more, the practical problems are many. Which agency or body would have the power to enforce the Supreme Court’s code? If there were a dispute as to the application or meaning of the code, who would resolve the dispute? Would it be the Supreme Court itself, which could produce discord on the court or give rise to claims that a decision was based on ideological or partisan grounds? Would it be a lower court, and if so, would the lower court’s determination be appealable to the Supreme Court?
I could go on. The justices have done a good job of policing themselves. We should leave well enough alone.
JIM DUEHOLM
Washington
Please read our comment policy before commenting.